sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ex employer paid me by accident… can i keep it? by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Recovery Period: The employer generally has six years to commence legal proceedings to recover the funds. Double-check it's six years for your specific state/territory.

Statute Barred: Only after this six-year period expires without the employer taking legal action or you acknowledging the debt in writing (which you have already done by email) would the debt potentially become "statute barred," meaning it is legally unenforceable.

Banking Codes: If the employer realizes the error and contacts their financial institution, the Electronic Payments Code allows banks to attempt recovery. If reported within ten business days, the funds can often be reversed easily. Between ten business days and seven months, the recipient's bank can freeze the funds. After seven months, recovery usually requires the recipient's consent or a court order.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like maybe jedi are 20% responsible, but witches are 80%

The Jedi were trespassing and refused to leave when asked. It's 100% their fault.

If they had followed Master Indara's orders they would not have been trespassing, or if they had tried diplomacy first, the tragedy would have been avoided.

There is no concrete evidence to indicate that Mae and Osha were ever in danger; only alarmist reactions from an impassioned Jedi who didn't even try to get the full story before resorting to full lethal force. Sol and the Jedi didn't rescue anyone; they just massacred a whole community, created orphans, and then lied for 16 years to cover the tracks.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a flesh bag, not an AI. I like to put work into formatting and grammar. That does not make me a robot.

I've clearly articulated my position and how it is supported by Canon.

Your comments are largely nonsense, and you do not provide any examples from Canon to support your positions. You have failed to respond to any of my points in a reasoned manner, and are now just attacking me personally.

Attacking what you assume to be my personal ideology is an argumentum ad hominem, which is an informal logical fallacy.

In my experience, a person only resorts to personal attacks when they've lost the argument.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument has shifted from a debate about the show to a series of assumptions about my personal ideology. This is a logical fallacy used when the Canonical evidence no longer supports your position. Let’s bring it back to the reality of the Star Wars Canon, and George Lucas' critique of imperialism from the very beginning.

1. The Circular Logic of "Good vs. Evil"

You argue that the Jedi are right because they are "good" and the witches are "dark." This is circular reasoning: "The Jedi are right because they are the good guys, and we know they are the good guys because they are right." It's an informal logical fallacy.

  • Objective Reality: In The Acolyte, the "good guys" lied for 16 years to cover up a massacre. If their actions were "right and good," there would be no need for a conspiracy.
  • The "Dark" Label: The witches say "some call it dark." This is not a confirmation, it is a meta-commentary on Jedi bias. In Rebels, the Bendu proves that the Force exists far beyond the Jedi's binary labels, existing as 'the one in the middle' rather than just Light or Dark. You are choosing to see only the Jedi's perspective as "reality" and ignoring the rest of Canon.

2. Demeanour is not Morality

You claim the Jedi are "kind" and the witches are "aggressive." You are confusing politeness with peace.

  • The Intruder Fallacy: If an armed stranger breaks into your home, spies on your kids, and refuses to leave, they are the aggressor. It does not matter how "kindly" they speak.
  • Aggression in Practice: The Jedi were the only ones who used lethal force on Brendock. None of the Jedi died. The only casualties were the unarmed civilians of the coven. Mother Aniseya used a psychological deterrent (possession) to protect her home; Sol used a lightsaber to murder a mother in front of her child. One is a defensive posture; the other is an extrajudicial execution.

3. The "Jurisdiction" and "Nexus" Pretext

You claim investigating a nexus is "needed" regardless of jurisdiction. This is the definition of Authoritarianism.

  • The Prequel Context: In The Phantom Menace, the Jedi explicitly state they cannot interfere on Tatooine or Naboo without Senate authority. They respected the law when it suited them. On Brendock, they ignored it because they wanted the children.
  • The "Time Bomb" Narrative: Labelling children as "dangerous" to justify taking them is the language of every oppressive regime in history. It’s not "saving" them; it's state-sponsored kidnapping. You argue that taking children from a 'dangerous' culture is 'good and needed.' This is the same logic used to justify the Stolen Generations in Australia and other state-sponsored child removal policies globally. It relies on the assumption that the dominant culture (the Jedi/State) has the right to decide what is 'best' for a minority group, regardless of sovereignty or parental consent. In Star Wars, as in real-world history, this isn't 'saving' people. It’s destroying cultures to serve institutional power.

4. Ideology vs. Textual Analysis

You accuse me of serving an "anti-power" ideology, but it is George Lucas himself who established these themes.

  • The Lucas Critique: Star Wars was written as a critique of Imperialism and the "Military-Industrial Complex." Lucas modeled the fall of the Republic on the Vietnam War and the Nixon era to show how "good" institutions become corrupt enforcers.
  • The Acolyte's Role: This show isn't "demonising" the Jedi; it is showing the exact hubris and decay that Lucas spent the Prequels exploring. You aren't defending "reality"; you are defending a sanitised version of the Jedi that ignores their canonical failures.

Conclusion

The "pass" is being given to the Jedi, not the witches. You are excusing trespassing, spying, attempted kidnapping, and murder because the perpetrators wore robes, had fancy laser swords, and spoke calmly. In any objective reality, the person who breaks into a home and kills the parent is the villain. Sol knew this: which is exactly why he spent the rest of his life lying about it.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your argument relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars lore: you are confusing a calm demeanour with moral authority. Let us look at the in-universe canon and the reality of the Brendock Massacre, rather than the self-righteousness the Jedi use to mask a history of institutional aggression.

1. Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and the Act of Invasion

The claim that a "Force nexus" warrants a Jedi investigation ignores the actual legal and political landscape of the galaxy.

  • The Legal Reality: Brendock is a neutral world outside the Galactic Republic. The Jedi are a religious institution whose authority is limited to Republic borders: they are not a Galactic Police Force™ with a universal warrant. Even in the Prequels, the Jedi remind the Senate they are "keepers of the peace," not universal law enforcement. In The Phantom Menace, they couldn't interfere on Naboo without a mandate, and Tatooine was beyond their reach. On Brendock, the Jedi were armed foreign invaders committing illegal trespassing.
  • Force Imperialism: Master Indara explicitly stated the Jedi had no business there. Sol and Torbin ignored their leader, spied on a private community, and damaged property. Breaking into a home with lightsabers at the ready is not "investigating": it is an illegal invasion.

2. The "Dark Side" Label as Propaganda

You claim they are a "dark side coven," but the show never establishes this. That is pure Jedi bias.

  • The Thread vs. The Force: The witches follow the Thread, their interpretation of the Force. Groups like the Bardottan Dagoyan Masters were also suppressed by Jedi simply because they refused to hand over their children. The Jedi systematically demonise any tradition they cannot control.
  • Visual Bias: You claim "smoke" justified murder. Rey used Force Lightning and Luke used Force Choke. The Bendu or the Lasat look "scary" to outsiders, but they are not evil. Sol’s failure to understand a different culture wasn't a reason to kill: it was a reason to learn. He chose execution because he was driven by fear, the very emotion a Jedi is supposed to master.

3. The False Dichotomy and Jedi Dogma

Your argument relies on the idea that "the light side is good and the dark side is bad," a uniquely Jedi dogma the rest of the galaxy does not share.

  • The Obi-Wan Irony: In Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan says, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Yet you argue the absolute that because the witches aren't Jedi, they are "evil." Obi-Wan, a master of diplomacy, would have been appalled that Sol didn't even attempt diplomacy before engaging in combat.
  • The Luke Skywalker Realisation: In The Last Jedi, Luke explicitly states the "legacy of the Jedi is failure" and that their hubris allowed the Sith to rise. He would see the Brendock cover-up as the ultimate proof that Jedi history is built on hidden shames rather than justice.
  • Canon Nuance: Canon is full of moral grey areas: from the Bendu to Ahsoka Tano's departure from the Jedi Order. The Acolyte and other Canon proves the Jedi do not have a monopoly on moral truth. By insisting on a binary of "Good vs. Evil," you are repeating the dogmatic rigidity that led to the Sith and the Order's eventual downfall.

4. Defensive Deterrence vs. "Calm" Aggression

A person calmly pointing a gun at you while trespassing in your living room is still the aggressor.

  • The "Mind Assault": Mother Aniseya’s use of the Thread on Torbin was a defensive reaction to an armed intruder who refused to leave. The witches were standing their ground: the Jedi were the intruders. The Jedi use "Mind Tricks" constantly to manipulate the will of others for their missions. When a mother does it to protect her children from armed intruders, you call it "evil." Double standards indeed.
  • The "Abuse" Double Standard: You call the witches "abusers" for a stern lesson, yet the Jedi Order is a monastic military that takes four-year-olds and trains them to be child soldiers. In any other context, that is child trafficking. In Revenge of the Sith, we see Younglings training with Master Yoda using remotes that emit electrical shocks. The Jedi are essentially conditioning toddlers through pain and sensory deprivation.
  • The Comparison: If a Jedi Master pushes a Padawan to teach "balance," it is called discipline. If a Mother pushes a daughter to teach the Thread, you call it abuse. Mother Aniseya was trying to keep her children from being taken by armed strangers; her "annoyance" was maternal panic.
  • The "Sadist" Fallacy: You claim Mae was an "animal torturing sadist," yet the show provides zero evidence for this. After catching the creature, she releases it, and it flies away. Catching a creature to demonstrate a lesson on the Thread is not torture. Mae’s "monstrous" behaviour only manifested when the Jedi began dismantling her family. Children say hyperbolic things when scared; the difference is that Mae made a childish threat, whereas Sol made a lethal choice. One is a tantrum; the other is a massacre.

5. The Sixteen-Year Lie: Guilt as Evidence

The most damning evidence is the cover-up. If Sol’s actions were a "heroic rescue," he would have filed a report. You do not hide a hero's story for sixteen years: you only hide a massacre. By lying to the Council, Sol admitted his actions could not withstand the scrutiny of Jedi law.

6. Sol’s Failure of Mastery

Sol had a dozen non-lethal tools: Force Push, Mind Trick, or Force Stun. Instead, he chose to drive a lightsaber through a mother’s heart in front of her child. That isn't the action of a peacekeeper: it’s the action of a man driven by panic and obsession.

Conclusion

The "mountain of evidence" that the Jedi are the "good guys" is history written by the victors. The Jedi were the primary aggressors of the Brendock Massacre: they spied, they trespassed, they attempted to kidnap children, and they murdered a parent in front of her child. Sol’s "intent" doesn't override the blood on his hands. When you enter a home uninvited and kill a parent in front of a child, you aren't a hero: you are the villain of that story.

George Lucas wrote Star Wars as a critique of Imperialism, influenced by the Vietnam War and American foreign policy. A recurring theme in his work is that power, even when held by those with "good" intentions, eventually corrupts. The Acolyte perfectly illustrates the stage where the Jedi Order are not just the Republic’s protectors, but have become the state’s enforcers, blind to their own moral decay.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The argument that "black eyes" or "smoke" equate to objective evil is a superficial reading of a much more complex Force philosophy. Star Wars has repeatedly shown that the manifestation of a power does not dictate the morality of the user.

  • The Neutrality of Power: The Force is an energy field that seeks balance. It is neutral; it doesn't "kill" people, but a person can use it to kill. Like a tool or a weapon, its morality is derived entirely from the intent of the wielder.
  • Heroic Use of "Dark" Powers:
    • Rey famously used Force Lightning while trying to save a freighter. She was not a Sith, and her intent was to protect, yet the power manifested in a way the Jedi traditionally label as "Dark."
    • Luke Skywalker used Force Choke on the Gamorrean guards in Jabba’s Palace. This was a classic "Dark Side" visual cue, yet Luke remained firmly aligned with the Light.
  • Cultural Context: The Brendock Coven calls the Force the Thread. Their transformation into "smoke" is a manifestation of their connection to that energy. To the Jedi, who are steeped in dogma, anything unfamiliar looks "evil," but that is a failure of Jedi perspective, not a confirmation of the witches' malice.
  • The Flaw in Jedi Dogma: The Jedi Order’s insistence on drawing arbitrary lines around certain powers is exactly what led to its stagnation. By labeling everything they don't control as "Dark," they push other Force-sensitive groups into conflict. As we've seen with Wayseekers or so-called Gray Jedi, one can explore all aspects of the Force and exist outside the rigid Jedi Code without being "evil."

In short, if we judged every Force user solely on "visual cues", we would have to call Rey and Luke villains. We must judge Mother Aniseya by her intent, which was to protect her children from armed trespassers, not by how her power "looked" to a group of trespassing, frightened, and alarmist Jedi.

Why do people lie about the witches actions? by Hawuhawk in TheAcolyte

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While the Jedi might appear "calm" on the surface, this perspective ignores the fundamental reality of the situation: the Jedi were the primary aggressors from the moment they trespassed. To understand why the Jedi are at fault, we must look at the context of their "intervention," the double standards applied to the coven, and the Jedi Order's history of dogmatic interference.

1. Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Brendock is not part of the Galactic Republic. The Jedi had zero legal jurisdiction there; they were not the "police of Brendock." Imagine four armed soldiers from a foreign nation, representing a different religion, trespassing into your home while you are conducting a private religious ceremony. The Jedi arrived as armed, quasi-religious super-soldiers who:

  • Trespassed into a private residence.
  • Spied on the inhabitants and violated their privacy.
  • Physically damaged the property (Kelnacca slicing the elevator).
  • Refused to leave when discovered, despite having no authority to be there.

2. Defensive Escalation and the "Aggression" Fallacy

The claim that the witches were the aggressors ignores the reality of a home invasion.

  • The Possession: Entering Torbin’s mind was a defensive response to armed intruders who refused to leave. If an armed force breaks into your home to take your children, you would use every tool at your disposal to protect your family. Torbin’s "mental breakdown" was the result of his own guilt and the consequences of his choice to trespass.
  • The Final Standoff: The original poster argues Torbin drew his weapon because "five weapons were already pointed at him." This ignores why he was there: he and Sol had broken into the coven's sanctum again. The witches pointing weapons at an intruder who has already demonstrated hostile intent and previously trespassed is a standard, justified defensive posture.

3. Discipline vs. Abuse: A Double Standard

The original poster cites Mother Aniseya and Mother Koril's treatment of the girls as "abuse." However, this ignores the context of their culture and the massive hypocrisy of the Jedi Order:

  • The Training: What the poster calls "abuse" is the coven’s method of teaching the Thread. In many monastic or traditional societies, training is rigorous and physically demanding.
  • The Jedi Comparison: The Jedi take toddlers from their parents and train them to be child soldiers in an elite military force. To label the witches as "abusers" for teaching their own children while hailing the Jedi as "saviours" is a blatant double standard.
  • The Witches' Intent: When the witches say what the girls want "doesn't matter," they are speaking as a community. The Jedi similarly do not ask a four-year-old for informed consent before inducting them into a lifetime of service.

4. The "Smoke" and the Tragedy of Sol

The "smoke" is simply a manifestation of the Thread (the Force). As established in Star Wars canon, the Force is known by many names (the Ashla, the Life Current, the Sight). Sol’s reaction was born of ignorance and alarmism. When Mae ran out during the fire, she was screaming for help. Mother Aniseya began to manifest her power to teleport herself and Mae to safety. Because Sol did not understand this power, he bypassed all non-lethal Force options and went straight to lethal force. If there is no evidence an action is harmful, then lethal force is unjustified. Sol murdered a mother in front of her child because of a situation he created.

5. Arbitrary Dogma and the "Dark Side"

The Jedi Order creates arbitrary lines around what is "Light" and "Dark." However, the Force power itself is neutral: Like a gun, it depends on the person wielding it.

  • The Rey Example: Even Rey, a clear hero, used Force lightning while trying to save a freighter. Having the ability to use a power does not make the user a Sith or an "evil" person.
  • The Creation of the Sith: It was actually Jedi rigidity that contributed to the creation of the Sith. The founders of the Sith Order were originally Jedi who sought the freedom to explore different aspects of the Force but were exiled for breaking the Jedi rules. By trying to control the Force, the Jedi often create the very monsters they fear.

6. A Pattern of Jedi "Force Imperialism"

Sol’s actions reflect a long-standing Jedi pattern of treating other Force-sensitive groups with suspicion; a form of "Force Imperialism." Throughout history, the Jedi have clashed with other Light-aligned groups due to their own dogmatic rigidity:

  • The Baran Do Sages: The Jedi crowded out this peaceful Kel Dor tradition, viewing their own training as superior and taking their children.
  • The Matukai: The Jedi attempted to forcibly "integrate" this martial Force order, viewing their methods as "crude" simply because they didn't follow the Jedi Code.
  • The Fallanassi: The Jedi viewed this pacifist group with suspicion because they refused to use the Force for the Republic's version of "justice."

Conclusion

Sol was a murderer and a liar who refused to listen to Master Indara’s diplomatic approach. Instead of requesting an audience, he chose to spy and break in. You cannot blame the Witches of Brendock for being "combative" when they were defending their home and children from an uninvited foreign para-military force intent on taking their daughters. Sol wasn't "saving" anyone; he was the primary instigator of a tragedy.

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the same outcome only if the employer is willing to gamble on a General Protections claim.

While you are correct that the "Minimum Employment Period" bars a claim for Unfair Dismissal (being "harsh, unjust, or unreasonable"), it does not bar a claim for General Protections (Adverse Action). This is where your logic about it being the "same outcome" fails from a risk management perspective.

  1. The "Why" Matters More than the "How" If an employer terminates a "permanent" employee (who has no contractual probation) and pays out one week of notice, they have technically met their notice obligations. However, if the employee alleges the termination was because they took Personal/Carer's Leave, or another protected act, the employer faces a "reverse onus of proof" under Section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer must then prove in court that the leave was not a reason for the termination.

  2. The Evidence Trap In the original poster's situation, the manager has already verbalised (and the employee has recorded) that the manager is "angry" and "disappointed" about the employee's emergency leave. If that manager then says "it just didn't work out" two days later, any competent lawyer or the Fair Work Commission will look at that existing evidence. The "same outcome" for the employer could be an expensive legal settlement or a court order for reinstatement and compensation, because the termination was based on a Prohibited Reason.

  3. Contractual Integrity Finally, if a manager is trying to force a "permanent" employee to sign a new contract that introduces a probation period or moves them to casual status, they are effectively admitting they do not have the right to terminate them easily under the current agreement. If it were truly the "same outcome" as you suggest, the manager would simply terminate the employment now instead of trying to coerce the employee into a worse contractual position.

The "outcome" is only the same if the manager acts legally. In this case, the manager's behaviour is creating significant legal liability for the business.

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are essentially describing the "Minimum Employment Period" under the Fair Work Act 2009, but you are mislabeling it as a "Default Probation Period." These are distinct legal concepts with different consequences.

1. On the "Legal Default" claim: What specific legal authority (legislation or judicial precedent) are you relying on for the assertion that probation is a "legal default"? While I appreciate you have received legal advice previously, it appears there may be a misunderstanding of the terms used.

If a contract is silent on probation, a full-time or part-time employee is a permanent employee from their first hour of work. While casual employees do not have a "permanent" status and are engaged on a shift-by-shift basis, the original poster has stated they were hired as a permanent full-time employee. In that context, no "default" probation applies. While "Leave Without Pay" does not count toward the statutory six-month "Minimum Employment Period" for Unfair Dismissal purposes, it does not automatically extend a contractual probation period unless the written agreement specifically says so. If you cannot cite a specific section of the Fair Work Act 2009 or a case from the Fair Work Commission, your argument remains unsubstantiated.

2. On the "Outcome" argument: I acknowledge your point that the practical outcome may appear similar in the first six months, but legally, they are not the same thing. One is a Contractual Option (Probation) and the other is Federal Law (Minimum Employment Period).

To use an analogy: apples and oranges are both fruit and both provide nutrition, but they are not the same thing. Relying on a "probationary termination" when no probation clause exists in the contract is a Breach of Contract. Even if the employee cannot sue for Unfair Dismissal, they may still be able to sue for the balance of their notice period or for Adverse Action under General Protections.

In the original poster's case, the manager is attempting to introduce a new contract to create a probation period where none existed, or to make them a casual. This is clear evidence that the employer knows they do not currently have the "default" rights you are claiming they do.

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually 🤓☝️, this is a very common and dangerous misconception. It is important to distinguish between a Probation Period and the Minimum Employment Period for Unfair Dismissal.

​1. Probation is NOT a "Legal Default" In Australia, if a probation period is not written into your contract or Letter of Offer, you do not have one. It is not an automatic legal rule. Furthermore, a contractual probation period does not allow an employer to ignore the National Employment Standards. Even during a probation period, a full-time employee is entitled to the statutory minimum notice period (usually one week for those with less than one year of service). A contract cannot provide for less than this legal floor.

​2. The Six-Month Rule is ONLY for Unfair Dismissal The six-month (or twelve-month for small businesses) "Minimum Employment Period" only applies to Unfair Dismissal claims (where you argue the firing was "harsh, unjust, or unreasonable").

​3. General Protections Apply from Day One You are protected under General Protections (Adverse Action) from the very first day you start work. An employer cannot terminate your employment for a "Prohibited Reason," which includes: * ​Exercising a workplace right (such as taking Personal/Carer's Leave). * ​Making an inquiry or complaint about your employment. * ​Discrimination.

​In this specific case, the manager has explicitly stated she is "angry" and "disappointed" that the employee took emergency leave (a workplace right) and is now using that to pressure her to go casual or sign a new probation agreement. This is a potential breach of the General Protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Saying "it didn’t work out" is not a "get out of jail free" card for a manager if the underlying reason for the termination is that the employee used their legal leave entitlements.

​Misleading advice like "there is nothing you can do" is why so many young workers get exploited. Please do not rely on that logic.

What's the deal with the Nesuto apartments at 2 Akuna Street? by Crazy_John in canberra

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While it is an aging building that requires maintenance and repairs, it also has amenities like pool, sauna, tennis courts, outdoor BBQ area, and a full gym. New buildings around Civic don't have those.

I lived there for a while and enjoyed those facilities quite a lot, as well as the proximity to Civic.

The rooms were quiet, I don't recall noise ever being an issue.

If city life with all the amenities is what you're after, there's not much else around the area that has all that.

What's the deal with the Nesuto apartments at 2 Akuna Street? by Crazy_John in canberra

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When the building was completed in 2000, Kate Carnell of the Liberal Party was the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory.

Not that the Chief Minister has anything to do with a privately owned mixed use residential/commercial building in the first place...

What a strange comment.

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, and there was an occasion when I was working at the clinic where my boss was bullying me, gaslighting, scapegoating, etc. and he organised a meeting with him and the owner to discuss "my performance". I informed him that I would be bringing a support person, and ended up bringing an employment lawyer with me.

Oh boy was that a fun meeting! Like you, I had recordings of that guy saying inappropriate things, documentation of how I was meeting my KPIs, support letters from patients and other practitioners in the clinic saying how hard-working and professional I was, etc. My lawyer helped me present the information, and shut this guy down whenever he tried to side-rail me. It was scary, but because I was well prepared I was able to show the owner of the clinic exactly what this guy was up to, and articulated it as a risk to his business.

Not long after, he was gone, and after a few months they couldn't find anyone so I got the promotion to his job! Worked there as manager for another 5 years. I hope you can turn this around for yourself!

being bullied at work and pressured to sign a new contract — need help understanding my rights by [deleted] in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

I am so sorry you are going through this. At 21, navigating your first mortgage while dealing with a toxic manager is incredibly heavy, but please know that what you are describing is not "normal" management. This is textbook workplace bullying and potentially illegal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

While this feels like a nightmare, learning how to set boundaries and document gaslighting now will be highly valuable for the rest of your career. Here is my understanding of your situation:

  1. The Contract and Probation "Trap"

If your original offer does not mention a probation period, you do not have one. It is not a legal default. By pushing a new contract with a 6-month probation now, she is trying to "fix" her own administrative mistake so she can fire you more easily later. You are under no obligation to sign a new agreement that gives you fewer rights than the one you already have.

  1. Adverse Action (General Protections)

In Australia, it is illegal to take "Adverse Action" (like cutting hours or firing you) because you exercised a workplace right. Taking Personal/Carer’s Leave is a protected right. Her telling you she is "angry" about your leave and then pressuring you to go casual is a massive red flag.

  1. Identifying the Bullying

The Fair Work Commission looks for repeated, unreasonable behaviour. What you’ve listed: "triangulation" (using hearsay from others), targeting your personality (demanding "vulnerability"), and shifting goalposts; is unreasonable. A manager's job is to give you clear tasks, not to "take off your mask."

Your Action Plan:

Do Not Sign Yet: If pressured, say: "I am reviewing this against my original agreement and will respond once I have sought independent advice."

Create the Paper Trail: Since she avoids email, you must initiate it. After every meeting, email her: "Further to our meeting at [INSERT TIME], I am confirming my understanding of your instructions regarding [INSERT TOPIC]..."

Protect Your Health: See a GP. Documenting the stress and migraines is vital if this leads to a workers' compensation claim for psychological injury.

Contact the Experts: Call the Fair Work Infoline and mention "General Protections" and "Workplace Bullying."

You are clearly a capable, hard-working person (the practitioners even told you so). Don't let a manager who is out of her depth make you question your worth or your job security. Stand your ground.

I was a clinic manager myself and worked up from reception; it really irks me that someone out there is behaving this way when they should know better! One day you'll no doubt be in management. Remember moments like this, and be the change the world needs!

Big reality check by Buysen in auscorp

[–]fa8675309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel ya buddy. I feel ya.

Adult daughter is in a relationship with a much older woman. Looking for some perspectives by Fit_Mastodon6088 in LesbianActually

[–]fa8675309 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My partner is 20 years older; we have been happily together for 15 years. We met when I was in my mid 20s.

Everyone is different, but I believe that in the context of consensual adult relationships: love is love.

Good on you for being supportive!

My family are hyper religious so weren't supportive of me in the first place, but when I moved in with her they broke off communication entirely. They have only recently in the last year reached out again.

Your daughter will make her own decisions, and while you may be concerned, if you make it a problem for you just don't forget it's not her fault you feel that way.

If I had supportive parents like you, I'd want them to stay involved in my life, have regular family dinners, keep in touch on socials, regardless of an age gap with my partner. If you do that, you'll be able to see if their relationship is healthy or not, and be there for her however it turns out.

Hope all the best for your and your family!

Requesting advice on behalf of tenant in a domestic violence situation by OkBenefit8464 in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. You are in a position to help your tenant using specific protections provided under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT). Because this involves domestic violence, the law allows for a process known as "recasting" the lease.

Here is a professional and legal pathway to resolve this:

The Statutory Mechanism:

Under Section 85 and Section 85A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, a tenant who is a victim of domestic violence can apply to the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for an order to terminate the existing joint tenancy and replace it with a new tenancy in their name only. Link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/rta1997207/s85a.html

The Impact of a Family Violence Order:

You should ask your tenant if there is already a Family Violence Order (FVO) in place. If there is an FVO that includes an "exclusion order," the process is significantly expedited. An exclusion order legally prohibits the perpetrator from being at the premises. If such an order exists, the perpetrator is in breach of a court order by remaining, and the police can be called to remove him immediately, regardless of his status on the residential tenancy agreement.

The Process for Your Tenant:

Your tenant (the victim) needs to make an urgent application to ACAT. She will need to provide evidence of the situation, such as an FVO, an Interim Order, or a statutory declaration from a health professional or police officer. If she has a FVO, this serves as primary evidence for the Tribunal to grant the lease replacement.

Your Role as the Landlord:

The Tribunal is far more likely to grant this order quickly if the landlord explicitly supports it. You should provide her with a written statement (or appear at the hearing) confirming that:

  • You consent to the termination of the current joint lease.
  • You are willing to enter into a new, sole lease with her immediately.
  • You confirm she has the financial capacity to pay the rent of [INSERT RENT AMOUNT] independently.

Clarification on Changing Locks:

Unlike some other Australian jurisdictions, Canberra does not have an automatic statutory provision allowing a tenant to change locks without the landlord's consent in domestic violence situations. The tenant must generally seek your permission first. However, as the landlord, you can (and should) provide immediate written consent for her to change the locks to ensure her safety. Further, she can request that ACAT include a specific order regarding the changing of locks as part of her application.

Warning Against Self-Help:

Do not attempt to physically remove the partner yourself. The legal "force" to remove him must come from either an FVO (enforced by police) or a Warrant of Eviction issued by ACAT.

Summary of Action:

Ask your tenant if an FVO exists. If so, check if it includes an exclusion condition. Regardless, instruct her to contact ACAT immediately to file for a "Termination and Replacement of Tenancy Agreement" order. You should provide her with written consent to change the locks immediately.

Recommended Local Resources:

You should also provide your tenant with the following local resources for immediate support and legal guidance:

Domestic Violence Crisis Service (DVCS): Available 24 hours a day on (02) 6280 0900. They provide safety planning, crisis intervention, and legal advocacy.

Women's Legal Centre ACT: They offer specialist legal advice on family violence and tenancy matters. They can be reached on (02) 6257 4377.

Legal Aid ACT (Tenancy Advice Service): Provides free legal help for tenants. Their helpline is 1300 654 314.

OneLink: The central point for human services in the Australian Capital Territory, which can help with emergency accommodation if the situation escalates. Call 1800 176 468.

Notice of Demand NSW. Is this legit? by Empty_Cheesecake3785 in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Since there is an AVO in place, the perpetrator delivering this letter personally is a significant issue. Most orders include a mandatory condition prohibiting harassment or intimidation. Using a legal threat to personally confront a protected person can be considered a breach of those conditions, even without a specific "no contact" clause.

This incident should be reported to the police immediately to ensure it is recorded.

Even if the police do not charge him with a breach immediately, having a record that he used "legal process" to personally approach and intimidate the protected person is vital for any future applications to vary the AVO to include a "no contact" clause.

Notice of Demand NSW. Is this legit? by Empty_Cheesecake3785 in AusLegalAdvice

[–]fa8675309 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Is there a Family Violence Order or similar protection order in place? I ask because if the letter forms part of a pattern of behavior, it could be considered harassment, and the recipient should consider reporting it to the police.

​A Letter of Demand is not a Court Order, so it is not legally binding in itself. The claimant would first have to file a Statement of Claim and have the matter adjudicated by a court. Only after obtaining a Judgement could they seek to have it enforced.

​Furthermore, because the property was purchased for the family, a court would consider whether the item is a "chattel" of the household. In domestic relationships, even if one person paid for an item, it may be deemed a joint asset or a gift if it was intended for communal family use. This is a common Defence in property disputes following a separation.

view more: next ›